DiscussMormonism.com

As is being reported over at the MAD Board, David Bokovoy is making a comeback after years of self-exile. Welcome back David! I can't wait to read your next publication.

From David's Facebook:

"Without the biblical book of Isaiah, the Book of Mormon would not exist. Isaiah appears directly cited, echoed, or alluded to throughout the entire work. For many years, Mormon apologists have struggled to reconcile their belief in the book as an authentic work from antiquity with the fact that the Book of Mormon relies so heavily upon the exilic chapters of Isaiah, which the Book of Mormon anachronistically presents as pre-exilic material. This underlying assumption reflects Joseph Smith’s own early nineteenth century beliefs regarding Isaianic authorship. However, Smith's understanding, and by extension, the one featured in the Book of Mormon, is not a reflection of historical reality.

Simply put, if the Book of Mormon is what most Latter-day Saints assume, namely an authentic ancient translation of a historical record from antiquity, then the Isaianic material scholars refer to as Deutero-Isaiah should not appear cited throughout the work. Yet it does, extensively.

Apologists addressing this issue have frequently noted that not withstanding this serious challenge to their beliefs, at least the Book of Mormon never presents the final ten chapters of Isaiah as pre-exilic material. And this is significant.

Since 1892, biblical scholars have recognized that Isaiah 56-66 contain an anthology of approximately twelve passages of oracles written by unknown prophets in the years immediately following the Jewish return from Babylon. If this post-exilic material appeared in the Book of Mormon, it would prove detrimental to traditional claims that the book is an ancient record.

Unfortunately, Mormon apologists who attempted to address these issues have had very little exposure to critical research on Isaiah. In reality, the Book of Mormon relies heavily upon what scholars refer to as Trito-Isaiah. Not only are these post-exilic chapters sometimes cited and alluded to throughout the book, the editors responsible for this final addition to the Isaianic corpus shaped the material the Book of Mormon cites as authentic pre-exilic Isaianic prophecies.

Without the book of Isaiah, the Book of Mormon would not exist. And its extensive reliance upon the post-exilic shaping of Isaiah helps scholars establish the Book of Mormon’s nineteenth century origins, and therefore, the original context or historical Sitz im Leben by which the book should be interpreted.

Or in other words, after an extended break of serious soul searching, I feel it's high time for me to return to my passion for critical scholarship and the way it helps contextualize religious texts. Because there is a lot to say about this exciting topic that helps us to better understand the Book of Mormon.

Colby Townsend and I are in the process of co-authoring an article on the subject. Whereas my own studies have primarily focused upon Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, Colby has done extensive research on Trito-Isaiah that has significantly enhanced my understanding of the issue."


https://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/73 ... of-Mormon/

I don't spend much time over on the MAD board but I did see that thread and read all of it. I look forward to reading what Bokovoy has to present insomuch as he knows what he's talking about.

I find the Isaiah controversy to be very interesting indeed. It's a nail in the Book of Mormon coffin. Man alive, I sure wouldn't want to be a Mormon apologist these days. Their ship has sunk and they are left dog paddling above water with nobody to save them.

Watching the apologists drown these days is quite satisfying.

The apologists are not suffering Shulem.......they imagine there is a $124,000,000,000 ship that's gonna come and save em! It's after all, for them that the money is being saved! Oh how inspired are the teachings of the multi-billionaires Mormon prophets!

Very nice to hear that Bokovoy is back in the game. I hope he elaborates on the tidbit that he revealed in his interview with John Dehlin: i.e., that bit about how a big chunk of Dr. Peterson's salary is still paid by the Maxwell Institute.

Bokovoy's back and there's gonna be a barbecue
Hey la day la, Bokovoy's back.
He's going to write a book and it's gonna be good now
Hey la day la, Bokovoy's back.

Robert F. Smith wrote:The upshot to all of this is that Bokovoy must reject the notion that the Book of Mormon is in Early Modern English. Either that or adapt his thesis to fit the 16th or 17th century.

If David rejects the Early Modern English translation committee, I hope that does not culminate in an Interpreter article or Hanna Seriac podcast against Dr. Bokovoy.

By the way, I understand where Robert Smith is coming from. If Joseph got something wrong, then the blame can be shifted back to those translator dudes in 16th Century London, who probably had too many flagons of ye old buttered beere.

As a nevermo, evangelical with some Bible study in my background, when at my tbm my wife request to read the Book of Mormon, i read along to isaiah then said unto my self "what the hell, they just copied almost word for word, this from the kjv" . no need to go further into the question of historicity of the Book of Mormon- Joseph Smith need a break and had OC copy the isaiah stuff into the Book of Mormon. moism is hoax/scam/19 century fiction.

just postulatin
k

It’s amazing what open minded scholarship can discover. You know, the kind that doesn’t start with a presupposed conclusion.

We keep finding more ways that Joseph Smith “studied it out” early and long, evidently with Clarke before 1829 as we will soon see. I wonder if eventually Calister will decide to stop laughing about the evolution of critical theories making Joseph into “some kind of genius.”

I mean, evidently Joseph he was smart enough to read and mimic Adam Clarke during the Book of Mormon translation too. How many farm boys with just a third grade education were poring over Adam Clarke in their free hours between treasure scams and an occasional day of labor?

Remember, Clarke is a 13 inch wide, 6 volume series covering every chapter of the Old and New Testaments. What Clarke writes is approximately an order of magnitude MORE than the entire Biblical text. Not light reading by any stretch. No place for someone who could barely write a coherent sentence, or whatever it was Emma said.

I’m convinced the whole “uneducated farm boy” ruse was a purposeful part of the act. Not just the Mormon act, but his scrying acts too. I think Joseph was curious, intelligent and secretly well read. Perhaps his passion for knowledge through reading started back in his youthful convalescence at age 7 in his well-educated uncle’s home in Salem, following the traumatic leg surgery. That lasted for months. What else would he have done with the time, unable to walk or go anywhere on his own?

This new scholarship, putting Clarke well in Joseph’s mind by 1829 means he was two steps ahead of his family, donors and his poor scribes the whole time. And maybe, his “study it out” mockery was bagged years in advance, thanks to Smith’s extensive personal studying of the great Biblical scholars, Clarke chief among them.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:23 pm

This new scholarship, putting Clarke well in Joseph’s mind by 1829 means he was two steps ahead of his family, donors and his poor scribes the whole time. And maybe, his “study it out” mockery was bagged years in advance, thanks to Smith’s extensive personal studying of the great Biblical scholars, Clarke chief among them.

Recall these words of wisdom given in 1832 in Smith's Olive Leaf :

D&C 88:118 wrote:And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:23 pm

It’s amazing what open minded scholarship can discover. You know, the kind that doesn’t start with a presupposed conclusion.

We keep finding more ways that Joseph Smith “studied it out” early and long, evidently with Clarke before 1829 as we will soon see. I wonder if eventually Calister will decide to stop laughing about the evolution of critical theories making Joseph into “some kind of genius.”

I mean, evidently Joseph he was smart enough to read and mimic Adam Clarke during the Book of Mormon translation too. How many farm boys with just a third grade education were poring over Adam Clarke in their free hours between treasure scams and an occasional day of labor?

Remember, Clarke is a 13 inch wide, 6 volume series covering every chapter of the Old and New Testaments. What Clarke writes is approximately an order of magnitude MORE than the entire Biblical text. Not light reading by any stretch. No place for someone who could barely write a coherent sentence, or whatever it was Emma said.

I’m convinced the whole “uneducated farm boy” ruse was a purposeful part of the act. Not just the Mormon act, but his scrying acts too. I think Joseph was curious, intelligent and secretly well read. Perhaps his passion for knowledge through reading started back in his youthful convalescence at age 7 in his well-educated uncle’s home in Salem, following the traumatic leg surgery. That lasted for months. What else would he have done with the time, unable to walk or go anywhere on his own?

This new scholarship, putting Clarke well in Joseph’s mind by 1829 means he was two steps ahead of his family, donors and his poor scribes the whole time. And maybe, his “study it out” mockery was bagged years in advance, thanks to Smith’s extensive personal studying of the great Biblical scholars, Clarke chief among them.

Do you think this might also point to a collaborative effort among the Smith clan? There was a lot of time in between the rock and the hat show and finalizing the original manuscript. This would allow time for a collaborative effort in getting the final manuscript ready for printing. Hyrum, Oliver Cowdery and others perhaps could have joined in on the effort to tell the story, writing and rewriting it, consulting Adam Clarke and other materials as they went along.

Dr Moore wrote: ↑

Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:23 pm

Remember, Clarke is a 13 inch wide, 6 volume series covering every chapter of the Old and New Testaments.

For Mormonism timeline purposes, when was Clarke's biblical commentary published?